Thursday, October 14, 2010

How about buying a clue?


Oh during the early days of this blog (y'know when I hadn't yet run out of material and my posts didn't just get put up based on the power of my OCD) the fun I had with the posts of one Pat Sajak and his right-wing lunacy. It was the epitome of ham-handed bromides that only a mother and Chuck Wollery could love. But alas, like most things that seem like gifts of an arbitrary and malevolent God, one day it all went away.

Thank goodness that National Review Online needed to add intellectual heft, because glory days, Pat Sajak is back and less rational than ever!

Who needs George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, or Sean Penn when the Right has Chuck Norris and -- "oh my God, I must say", P_t Sajak?"

if, for example, a ballot initiative appears that might cap the benefits of a certain group of state workers, should those workers be able to vote on the matter?

Yes, ol' P_t is certainly on to something, or perhaps on something. Those who may be affected by policies should not vote at all. People who have, may have, or have married, should not vote on issues that relate to issues like marriage. Only men and women of non-child producing years should vote on reproductive rights, this will empower older people and give children a vote. Oh, and those who may benefit from tax cuts, like millionaires should not vote on such issues, sorry P_t.

Not to mention, as P_t does mention, state workers like, police officers, fire fighters, emergency workers, national guard personnel, all should give up their right to vote on issues that affect them, because what have they ever done to have the right to vote anyway? They're all ciphers, they haven't done anything substantial like supervise somebody else turning letters.

Maybe, as one on P_t's post suggested, we can set up a special "Panel" to decide who gets to vote? We can use all those folks that had their hearts set on getting on a Death Panel and use them there. As long as they are not police officers, fire fighters, emergency workers, military personnel, government employees, men or women of child bearing years, people who have, may have, or have had sex, or millionaires. You know, no citizens. Finally, the GOP has a position for illegal immigrants they can document.

[sort of cross-posted at Firedoglake]


Montag said...

It's beyond ironic that National Review, in this day and age (and economy), is soliciting the opinion of a guy that runs a glorified carnival roulette game.

That's, well, damn, symbolic.

Anonymous said...

P_t Sajak. National Review's distinguished "Man of Letters".

Holy sweet buttery Jesus!! His first sentence is what hit me! Put that sentence up on that horrid show of his and No ONE would come up with the answer. (Unless they were Teabaggers...!)

jimmiraybob said...

What's that kind of government called where everyone, especially the peasants, with a stake in an election is banned from voting? I believe that there are some vowels involved.

Anonymous said...

Would the Senate even have a quorum if millionaires were prohibited on voting on tax cuts ?

pansypoo said...

can we vote on banker bonues?

Anonymous said...

As a federal employee, I can honestly say that if I have to work on a project to enact legislation, I don't get anything beyond my usual salary to make it happen. What an idiot.